crap ag science teacher

chickcharnley

just found out that my teacher did some mickey mouse ag science/ teaching degree at UL to get qualified;no wonder he hasnt a clue; my friends one went to UCD and did ag sceince degree and she knows what she is doing thoughts anyone?

MmmPancakes

Ag Science isn't too difficult, if you find your teacher is useless, take matters into your own hands and study it yourself. Do complain about it to the principal and ask him to bring it up at the next meeting or w/e.

Spurious will have more to say than I do on the complaining part.

chickcharnley

yes the teacher is crap, but I am also questioning their creditentials; a proper ag science teacher should have done an ag science or equivalent degree , not some teaching degree with ag science thrown in

spurious

How did you find out what your teacher's qualifications are?
Do the Teaching Council share your opinion of the 'mickey mouse degree' or do they accept it for teaching?

Many people would argue a specialist teaching degree is better than a degree with a H. Dip. added on.

lostatsea

spurious wrote: »

How did you find out what your teacher's qualifications are?
Do the Teaching Council share your opinion of the 'mickey mouse degree' or do they accept it for teaching?

Many people would argue a specialist teaching degree is better than a degree with a H. Dip. added on.

And many people are wrong.

Teaching a subject is about expertise and knowledge. Once you have this knowledge you need to learn to teach. Obviously, if you can't teach, all the subject expertise in the world won't help you as teacher.

However, there is no point being able to teach if you have very little knowledge.

These second-level teaching degrees are causing havoc in the system. Teachers are emerging from these degrees with first class honours apparently being able to teach Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Maths and Applied Maths. The moment they stand in front of the class it is obvious to the students in front of them that their knowledge of the subject is barely above their own.

The OP is correct and has identified a real problem in teaching that is getting worse.

spurious

I would like to know if the Teaching Council recognises this 'mickey mouse' degree. If they do, the OP has little ammunition to go to their Principal with.

Not sure what second-level degrees you are talking about. Could everyone be a bit more specific as to what qualification you are talking about and whether the TC recognises it?

rainbowtrout

It's the BSc in Science Education.

Graduates are qualified in Biology and Agricultural Science and also either Physics or Chemistry. It's the degree I have myself and it's served me very well. It's recognised by the Teaching Council and is certainly not mickey mouse.

rainbowtrout

lostatsea wrote: »

And many people are wrong.

Teaching a subject is about expertise and knowledge. Once you have this knowledge you need to learn to teach. Obviously, if you can't teach, all the subject expertise in the world won't help you as teacher.

However, there is no point being able to teach if you have very little knowledge.

These second-level teaching degrees are causing havoc in the system. Teachers are emerging from these degrees with first class honours apparently being able to teach Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Maths and Applied Maths. The moment they stand in front of the class it is obvious to the students in front of them that their knowledge of the subject is barely above their own.

The OP is correct and has identified a real problem in teaching that is getting worse.

And your evidence for this is what exactly?

There is no degree in the country that qualifies someone in 5 subjects. What you are qualified in and what a principal timetables you to teach are two very different things.

robman60

I can empathise with your situation a little. I went from having an absolutely exceptional French teacher in junior years to a terrible teacher for 5th year and now LC. I (along with classmates) made a reasonable plea more than anything to have a different teacher this year but we were ignored practically. It pains me to say it but there really isn't a whole lot you can do in my experience.

randylonghorn

chickcharnley wrote: »

just found out that my teacher did some mickey mouse ag science/ teaching degree at UL to get qualified;no wonder he hasnt a clue; my friends one went to UCD and did ag sceince degree and she knows what she is doing thoughts anyone?

You are basing your uninformed judgement of two qualification routes on your personal opinion of one graduate from each stream. Has it ever occurred to you that this may be down to the individuals concerned? If you're studying any science, ask yourself this: would any scientist base a theory on one example out of hundreds available?

The UL degree you mention is very far from "mickey mouse"; your teacher *may* genuinely be poor, I don't know, but that degree has a very good rep. nationwide for producing capable teachers.

spurious wrote: »

Do the Teaching Council share your opinion of the 'mickey mouse degree' or do they accept it for teaching?

Nope, the TC would definitely not share that opinion.

lostatsea wrote: »

Teaching a subject is about expertise and knowledge. Once you have this knowledge you need to learn to teach. Obviously, if you can't teach, all the subject expertise in the world won't help you as teacher.

However, there is no point being able to teach if you have very little knowledge.

These second-level teaching degrees are causing havoc in the system. Teachers are emerging from these degrees with first class honours apparently being able to teach Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Maths and Applied Maths.

Lol, no degree claims to qualify teachers in that many subjects!

The fact that a range of subjects may be available to student teachers to *choose* from when they enrol for a degree doesn't mean that they do all of them / are qualified in all at the end.

Similarly, the fact that a school may expect a teacher to teach a subject area outside their specialism in this era of acute cutbacks doesn't mean that they are qualified to do so, or that the problem is with the actual degree.

lostatsea wrote: »

The moment they stand in front of the class it is obvious to the students in front of them that their knowledge of the subject is barely above their own.

The OP is correct and has identified a real problem in teaching that is getting worse.

Actually, a much more common problem is that someone does a degree in Ag Sci (or any other area) and, when they find that job offers aren't flying in the door, decide to do the HDip and teach. They have no real interest in teaching, it wasn't their original choice, and while some take to it and make excellent teachers and discover a talent in themselves they never expected, others don't.

At least those opting for the combined subject / teaching degrees from the start had an interest in teaching all along. Ofc, that doesn't mean that all of them are natural teachers either, but the problem isn't the degree route they chose.

chickcharnley

ahem rainbow trout...
and to quote you from another thread-
"So you could take the student who has learned everything out of a book, produced a ream of revision notes and gets an A in ag science but you put them on a farm and they don't know how to put that theory in practice or you could take the student who is not as good at learning things off word for word but you put them on a farm and they know how to grow potatoes, they know how to handle an animal because they have the practical experience....

If I was looking for one to work on a farm I know which one I'd be going for."
yeah I know who I would want as my ag science teacher, the person who did a proper ag science or related degree e.g. forestry etc or the inferior degree (mickey mouse thing) at UL!

spurious

chickcharnley wrote: »

If I was looking for one to work on a farm I know which one I'd be going for."
yeah I know who I would want as my ag science teacher, the person who did a proper ag science or related degree e.g. forestry etc or the inferior degree (mickey mouse thing) at UL!

I would want the person who could teach.

rainbowtrout

chickcharnley wrote: »

ahem rainbow trout...
and to quote you from another thread-
"So you could take the student who has learned everything out of a book, produced a ream of revision notes and gets an A in ag science but you put them on a farm and they don't know how to put that theory in practice or you could take the student who is not as good at learning things off word for word but you put them on a farm and they know how to grow potatoes, they know how to handle an animal because they have the practical experience....

If I was looking for one to work on a farm I know which one I'd be going for."
yeah I know who I would want as my ag science teacher, the person who did a proper ag science or related degree e.g. forestry etc or the inferior degree (mickey mouse thing) at UL!

For someone who has yet to do the leaving cert and gain a third level qualification you seem to know an awful lot about a degree qualification you don't have.

Funny, a forestry degree doesn't qualify a person to teach agriculture as it contains nothing on animal physiology, livestock, grassland, crops, genetics etc. and is not recognised as a suitable qualification for teaching purposes. I'd wonder why you would consider it acceptable particularly as forestry plays such a minute role in the ag science syllabus. On the other hand my degree which you are insistent on ridiculing on the basis of your experience with one teacher covered all of those areas.

randylonghorn

chickcharnley wrote: »

"So you could take the student who has learned everything out of a book, produced a ream of revision notes and gets an A in ag science but you put them on a farm and they don't know how to put that theory in practice or you could take the student who is not as good at learning things off word for word but you put them on a farm and they know how to grow potatoes, they know how to handle an animal because they have the practical experience....

If I was looking for one to work on a farm I know which one I'd be going for."

Absolutely.

chickcharnley wrote: »

Yeah I know who I would want as my ag science teacher, the person who did a proper ag science or related degree e.g. forestry etc or the inferior degree (mickey mouse thing) at UL!

You see, chick, here's the thing.

The fact that you dig in your heels and continue to describe it as an inferior degree or a "mickey mouse degree" doesn't actually make it so.

I could post here again and again saying that the sky is green; that wouldn't actually make it so.

It's your opinion, and as usual with your opinions as I've noticed on this forum before, the extent to which it is uninformed is only matched by the tenacity with which you cling to it.

The Teaching Council don't agree with you. I can't say it's a question I regularly go round asking teachers / principals, but any opinion I've ever heard expressed by them about this particular degree or indeed the 4 year joint degrees in education and a specific discipline has been in disagreement with yours.


By the way, and on a slight tangent, can I ask you what AgSci textbook you use in your school?

Corvo Attano

lostatsea wrote: »

The moment they stand in front of the class it is obvious to the students in front of them that their knowledge of the subject is barely above their own.

Are you actually serious that you think anyone with a third level degree knows equal or less than a student who hasn't finished second level?

chickcharnley wrote:

teaching degree with ag science

So the person has studied Ag Science in depth. Far more than you have.

Tell me this, when I graduate from NUIG with a Comp Sci degree that has a maths module that is enough to qualify me to teach maths will that be a mickey mouse degree in your eyes? Do I need to do Mathmatical Science or Pure Mathmatics to be enough?

EuropeanSon

I remember when I knew more than all the qualified, experienced people who were telling me I was wrong too... Oh it was bliss :rolleyes:

Someday, chickcharnley, you'll realise that your poorly substantiated, overly simplistic opinions are exactly that, and feel slightly embarrassed that you posted this thread.

Till then, well, there's not much you can do. I'd suggest taking randylonghorn's word as gospel (or, rather, as religious christians allegedly take the gospel).

Corvo Attano

Forget gospel. God himself had come down from his cloud to set you straight.

chickcharnley

lostatsea wrote: »

And many people are wrong.

Teaching a subject is about expertise and knowledge. Once you have this knowledge you need to learn to teach. Obviously, if you can't teach, all the subject expertise in the world won't help you as teacher.

However, there is no point being able to teach if you have very little knowledge.

These second-level teaching degrees are causing havoc in the system. Teachers are emerging from these degrees with first class honours apparently being able to teach Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Maths and Applied Maths. The moment they stand in front of the class it is obvious to the students in front of them that their knowledge of the subject is barely above their own.

The OP is correct and has identified a real problem in teaching that is getting worse.

agree with the above excellent post, to answer the other posters questions many of whom I have a sneaky suspicion did the mickey mouse teaching degree at UL/DCU; which places more emphasis on BS lesson plans etc than actually knowing youre stuff; how many top class teachers up at the IOE did that thing at UL? im not lying when I say I know more than my ag science teacher who went to UL nuff said...

spurious

You think working for the IOE is how to judge a 'top class teacher'?

You have a lot to learn.

spurious

chickcharnley wrote: »

nuff said...

I agree.
Thread closed.

randylonghorn

chickcharnley wrote: »

agree with the above excellent post, to answer the other posters questions many of whom I have a sneaky suspicion did the mickey mouse teaching degree at UL/DCU

*sigh*

Actually, I recognise most of the posters on this thread, and Rbt is the only one who did the degree in UL or who teaches AgSci or any science.

But sure you tried the same crap in your last thread when you found yourself without a leg to stand on: conspiracy theories, vested interests, people lining their pockets ... according to you! The usual veiled insinuations of the gutter press and the parish pump politician when they have nothing left of any worth to say! :rolleyes: